The DV looks like sh*t

Rating: 4/10 (9 January 2004)

No wonder I hate digital cameras.
The whole film had a washed-out, slightly blurry look to it that I thought was a problem in the DVD transfer. It was only when I saw Boyle being interviewed in the extras explaining the use of a DV camera, that I realized why the whole look of this film is terrible. If they had used 35mm film instead, I would've rated it up a notch or two.
Once again, style replaces substance in an ever technoid quest to *improve* something that didn't need improvement to begin with. I want to see a rich, colorful landscape being portrayed on the big screen, not some mind-numbing to-look-at video-game. The BBC could've shot something better than this. In fact, it looks like something they did shoot.
The story itself about a plague destroying Britain is ok, I suppose. The acting wasn't bad although it would be better suited to Los Angeles or New York than the UK. That's probably why I liked THE OMEGA MAN (1971) better. Why do British films try to copy the Americans, anyway?
I'll give it a 6 for plot and a 1 for cinematic look.
Which rounds out to a 4 out of 10